What creates matter?

[zimmer80203`]

Science has consistantly shown man that he knows very little about life or Nature with absolute certainty. Man is unable to prove what creates matter. Therefore it might be wise to view things as a possibility as opposed to an absolute certainty. When we say we "know" something, we instruct the mind to cease investigating it.

[chaz wyman]

Science has consistantly shown man that he knows very little about life or Nature with absolute certainty. Man is unable to prove what creates matter. Therefore it might be wise to view things as a possibility as opposed to an absolute certainty. When we say we "know" something, we instruct the mind to cease investigating it.

Science demands that matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed.

There is little else to say.
There is no axiom devised by science with more inductive force.

[zimmer80203`]

Science damands that matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed.

Are you saying that physical matter has always existed? If it hasn't always existed, then something created it.

Science points out that the universe is expanding. Likewise, more and more matter is coming into existence. What created it?

[chaz wyman]

Science damands that matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed.

Are you saying that physical matter has always existed? If it hasn't always existed, then something created it.

Science points out that the universe is expanding. Likewise, more and more matter is coming into existence. What created it?

No, no, no. Science is not saying that at all. It says that the universe s expanding to accommodate the matter that exploded at the start of the big bang (BB). No one is suggesting that matter is continually coming into being.
The BB was a point of extremely dense matter that exploded making space as it went.
There is no more matter being made.

The only examples of consciousness we have are based on matter. No consciousness has ever been seen to create matter. We have every reason to assert that consciousness comes from matter and NOT the other way round.

It is likely that all the matter existed in the infinity of time at the moment of the BB, and has been moving outwards ever since. There is no new matter, and consciousness appears very recently.

[zimmer80203`]

The only examples of consciousness we have are based on matter. No consciousness has ever been seen to create matter. We have every reason to assert that consciousness comes from matter and NOT the other way round.

No consciousness has ever been seen period. How do we know consciousness didn't create matter when we know so little about it and are unable to see it? Thought (all that chatter in people's heads) prevents most people from being consciously aware of the existance of consciousness. There have been numerous studies done that shows that both thought and consciousness influences matter. I have yet to see any study where matter influenced thought or conciousness.

It is likely that all the matter existed in the infinity of time at the moment of the BB, and has been moving outwards ever since. There is no new matter, and consciousness appears very recently.

Are you saying that matter is a product of the BB? If so, what existed prior to the BB? What has always existed and will continue to always exist?

[chaz wyman]

The only examples of consciousness we have are based on matter. No consciousness has ever been seen to create matter. We have every reason to assert that consciousness comes from matter and NOT the other way round.

No consciousness has ever been seen period. How do we know consciousness didn't create matter when we know so little about it and are unable to see it?

Because of the evidence, of course!

Thought (all that chatter in people's heads) prevents most people from being consciously aware of the existance of consciousness.
Rubbish!
All that chatter you are spewing onto the pages of this Forum - what is that?

There have been numerous studies done that shows that both thought and consciousness influences matter.

Not true, not a single one.

I have yet to see any study where matter influenced thought or conciousness.

It is likely that all the matter existed in the infinity of time at the moment of the BB, and has been moving outwards ever since. There is no new matter, and consciousness appears very recently.

Are you saying that matter is a product of the BB?

No, I am saying that time itself is a consequence of the bang, nothing was crated at that moment. WHat the BB is, is change. Nothing was created, but simply changed from dense matter, condensed time, and the expansion of space.
Consciousness it did appear until recently.

If so, what existed prior to the BB? What has always existed and will continue to always exist?

There is NO BEFORE the BB. The moment of the BB is eternity.

[zimmer80203`]

Something else to consider about “what creates matter”: It is a self-evident fact that consciousness is intelligent. Does matter have intelligence? If it doesn’t, how can matter create consciousness or intelligence?

Consciousness has no known limitations where as matter does. How can that which is limited create that which is unlimited?

Another fact is that man does NOT understand the relationship (if any) between consciousness, matter and antimatter. Therefore man can NOT determine with absolute certainty what creates matter. Thus, anything about them remains a “possibility” rather than a foregone conclusion.

If man is to understand consciousness, matter and antimatter, his investigation of them has to be from the unknown as opposed to the known. In other words, he views things in terms of possibilities. His investigation ceases the moment he thinks he knows for thought sees no sense in investigating that which it “thinks or believes” it knows.

[zimmer80203`]

Chaz Wyman, do you ever question or challenge what you think your know or believe? If you don't, how do you know with absolute certainty that it is viable or accurate? And if you do, what do you use to challenge it?

[chaz wyman]

Chaz Wyman, do you ever question or challenge what you think your know or believe? If you don't, how do you know with absolute certainty that it is viable or accurate? And if you do, what do you use to challenge it?

Yes everyday.
I always consider new evidence to modify my knowledge.

[chaz wyman]

Something else to consider about “what creates matter”: It is a self-evident fact that consciousness is intelligent. Does matter have intelligence? If it doesn’t, how can matter create consciousness or intelligence?

You are just wrapping yourself up in circles. All evidence of intelligence comes from Brains. Brain matter is - matter.
Get over it!


Consciousness has no known limitations where as matter does.

Okay. Allow me to remove a part of your brain, and see how far your consciousness gets!!! Think about it.
If your consciousness is not limited then you will have no need for your brains.

How can that which is limited create that which is unlimited?

DUH!

Another fact is that man does NOT understand the relationship (if any) between consciousness, matter and antimatter. Therefore man can NOT determine with absolute certainty what creates matter. Thus, anything about them remains a “possibility” rather than a foregone conclusion.

You are now talking gibberish. We have plenty of demonstrations of the loss of consciousness when brains are damaged; affected by drugs; affected by alcohol; or even just hormones. The dependancy of consciousness on matter is pretty well understood.

And what the hell are you bringing anti-matter into this?



If man is to understand consciousness, matter and antimatter, his investigation of them has to be from the unknown as opposed to the known. In other words, he views things in terms of possibilities. His investigation ceases the moment he thinks he knows for thought sees no sense in investigating that which it “thinks or believes” it knows.

You are sounding more than a little naive now.

[Thundril]

Something else to consider about “what creates matter”: It is a self-evident fact that consciousness is intelligent. Does matter have intelligence? If it doesn’t, how can matter create consciousness or intelligence?

Intelligence includes the ability to think about a difficult subject from more than one POV. A few posts back I proposed thinking about consciousness as an activity rather than a thing. I would like to know what you thought about this suggestion,; for example whether you thought the experiment might be worth the effort?

Consciousness has no known limitations where as matter does.

Au contraire! Consciousness can be destroyed or cancelled or simply stopped from happening, very easily. (Think about contraception for a second.) Isn't that a limitation?
Matter/energy, OTOH, can only be transposed from one form to another. One set of states of energy-organisation can be considered as 'consciousness'.

How can that which is limited create that which is unlimited?

I have shown above, (and Chaz has shown repeatedly and with commendable patience) that consciousness certainly has observable limits. You have not shown that matter (ie mass/energy) has any limits at all. There's a challenge for you, Zimmer!

Another fact is that man does NOT understand the relationship (if any) between consciousness, matter and antimatter.

Where on earth did you get this idea from? The basic relation between matter and anti-matter is quite well understood. (They are opposites, with regard to certain pairs of properties. Therefore they cancel each other when they meet, and the products of this annihilation are know to a high degree of accuracy. If you doubt this, check out the operation of a PET scanner, such as you will find in many major hospitals these days.
Many of the complex interactions between consciousness and matter are also understood to very considerable degrees. See, for example, any basic description of fMRI. (Look that one up for yourself. It's not difficult )

Therefore man can NOT determine with absolute certainty what creates matter.

At last, something I can agree with. Man, (or woman, FTM) can know only one thing with absolute certainty; ie, that we are capable of error. And since this statement can be known with absolute certainty, it follows that nothing else can be!
That doesn't mean we can't know anything at all, just that we can't know anything absolutely. But so what?

Thus, anything about them remains a “possibility” rather than a foregone conclusion.
If man is to understand consciousness, matter and antimatter, his investigation of them has to be from the unknown as opposed to the known. In other words, he views things in terms of possibilities. His investigation ceases the moment he thinks he knows for thought sees no sense in investigating that which it “thinks or believes” it knows.

Have you actually taken a week out, ever, to actually read a popular guide to the main developments in early twentieth-century physics? There are plenty of good ones available. You would be impressed, I'm sure, by the importance physicists attach to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle.

[chaz wyman]

Something else to consider about “what creates matter”: It is a self-evident fact that consciousness is intelligent. Does matter have intelligence? If it doesn’t, how can matter create consciousness or intelligence?

Intelligence includes the ability to think about a difficult subject from more than one POV. A few posts back I proposed thinking about consciousness as an activity rather than a thing. I would like to know what you thought about this suggestion,; for example whether you thought the experiment might be worth the effort?

Consciousness has no known limitations where as matter does.

Au contraire! Consciousness can be destroyed or cancelled or simply stopped from happening, very easily. (Think about contraception for a second.) Isn't that a limitation?
Matter/energy, OTOH, can only be transposed from one form to another. One set of states of energy-organisation can be considered as 'consciousness'.

How can that which is limited create that which is unlimited?

I have shown above, (and Chaz has shown repeatedly and with commendable patience)

Thank you very much. I do try to be patient most of the time; believe it or not.
Cheers.

[Trifeck]

Hallo.

Wandered by one day, was fascinated by this discussion, registered just so I could have a crack at it.

First off, thank all you guys for a crazily enjoyable read. I've never seen a better example of "what if?" vs "but, no..." - and I spend my days arguing with myself if no one is willing to take on the burden.

Matter and energy are interchangeable. And neither can be created nor destroyed. In fact, most of the universe seems to be combinations of mass and energy devolving or evolving (or maybe just dancing around) according to patterns that we can extrapolate, generalize, and then call "laws".

A brain - and therefore consciousness - is an awesomely intricate example of this phenomenon.

First off, it requires both mass and energy - and both of very specific characteristics - to exist and operate. Slice off a lobe here or there, as Chaz repeatedly offered to do, and the consciousness changes. On the other hand, interrupt the energy flowing around - say by over-saturating it with a particular neurotransmitter - and the consciousness changes again, even though no appreciable structural change took place.

I have to say, though, I do agree with Zimmer when he says that the relationship between matter and energy should not be treated as a foregone conclusion. This relationship governs, among other things, the equations a sun produces as it burns over a few billion years, as well as the fragmented thoughts a butterfly might think as he checks out that fine lady sitting on the other petal.

As for where it all came from - well, why couldn't it have just always been here? Being the first intelligent person to notice something beautiful is such a deceptive thing. You always get the feeling you were somehow responsible for it yourself.

[chaz wyman]

Hallo.

Wandered by one day, was fascinated by this discussion, registered just so I could have a crack at it.

First off, thank all you guys for a crazily enjoyable read. I've never seen a better example of "what if?" vs "but, no..." - and I spend my days arguing with myself if no one is willing to take on the burden.

Matter and energy are interchangeable. And neither can be created nor destroyed. In fact, most of the universe seems to be combinations of mass and energy devolving or evolving (or maybe just dancing around) according to patterns that we can extrapolate, generalize, and then call "laws".

A brain - and therefore consciousness - is an awesomely intricate example of this phenomenon.

First off, it requires both mass and energy - and both of very specific characteristics - to exist and operate. Slice off a lobe here or there, as Chaz repeatedly offered to do, and the consciousness changes. On the other hand, interrupt the energy flowing around - say by over-saturating it with a particular neurotransmitter - and the consciousness changes again, even though no appreciable structural change took place.

I have to say, though, I do agree with Zimmer when he says that the relationship between matter and energy should not be treated as a foregone conclusion. This relationship governs, among other things, the equations a sun produces as it burns over a few billion years, as well as the fragmented thoughts a butterfly might think as he checks out that fine lady sitting on the other petal.

As for where it all came from - well, why couldn't it have just always been here? Being the first intelligent person to notice something beautiful is such a deceptive thing. You always get the feeling you were somehow responsible for it yourself.

Yes of course the thing about chopping off bits of the brain, OR hitting it with a field of magnetism, or a chemical messenger all go to establish my point that the mind is a physical (body; matter in motion; matter and energy) phenomenon and therefore not incorporeal such as under the mastery of a soul. the evidence point to the fact that we only get one chance at this and when you; the unique organisation of your brain, is finished, then you are finished.

As for this stuff always being here. No problem with that, even with the BB.
I'm not sure whether or not it is reasonable to argue that, 1) it makes sense to say that there was something into which the BB exploded or 2) whether it makes more sense to say that you compress an infinity of time the closer you get to the moment of the BB, and thus it is the same as saying the the universe has been here all along - I'm not sure. But there is no sense in which we have to see a beginning or single act of creation as being meaningful.

[Trifeck]

H'm.

Alright, I take your point about these being phenomena that can be represented as purely physical in nature. Would you agree, though, if I was to say that since energy and matter are inter-convertible, that it's equally possible to represent these phenomena as purely energetic in nature?

Say the 'soul' or even 'consciousness' (quotes cause these are bloody loaded, poorly defined terms that are tossed around too lightly, IMO), is nothing more than the electromagnetic representation of the entire physical construct, brain included - or any sub selection that you prefer. Fairly basic electromagnetic theory says that fluxing magnetic fields create currents, and vice versa. I'm not a fan of the 'we're reborn cos its written down' logic, but given that my consciousness can be represented as a type of electromagnetic field, which basic science says can be, and often is, captured, messed with, replicated, and tossed around... well. My certainty dwindles.

I agree with you completely when you say that there's no sense in seeing a single act as utterly meaningful; and so a chain of BBs going back and suddenly appearing ahead are okay in my book. I personally find the explanation of the Big Bang itself kinda surreal, though - I mean, "there was nothing, and then it exploded" is a bit too Douglas Adams, no?